Howell v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis
Decision Date | 10 June 1946 |
Docket Number | 13301.,No. 13300,13300 |
Citation | 155 F.2d 807 |
Parties | HOWELL v. TERMINAL R. ASS'N OF ST. LOUIS. TERMINAL R. ASS'N OF ST. LOUIS v. HOWELL. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Roberts P. Elam, of St. Louis, Mo. (Harvey B. Cox, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for Joy B. Howell.
Arnot L. Sheppard, of St. Louis, Mo., for Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
This action was brought by Joy B. Howell against Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence. Issues were joined, and the case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $33,000. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. Thereafter, with leave of court, the defendant filed, in addition, a motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence relating to the extent of the plaintiff's injuries. The court disposed of the defendant's separate motions in one order, which, so far as pertinent, reads as follows:
The plaintiff has appealed from the order upon the ground that the court abused its discretion in granting the defendant a new trial as to the issue of plaintiff's injuries and damages.
The defendant has appealed from the order upon the ground that the court submitted to the jury the issue of liability upon an erroneous theory.
Whatever may be thought to be the effect of the order appealed from, which, read literally, seems to have vacated the entire verdict and judgment and left the case completely undetermined, the order is not an appealable one.
An order granting or denying a motion for a new trial is not an appealable order. State of Missouri v. Todd, 8 Cir., 122 F.2d 804, 806; Jones v. Thompson, 8 Cir., 128 F.2d 888, 889; Alexander v. Special School District of Booneville, 8 Cir., 132 F.2d 355, 358; Gersing v. Chafitz, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 38, 133 F.2d 384; Bass v. Baltimore & Ohio Terminal R. Co., 7 Cir., 142 F.2d 779, 780, 781; Barbarino v. Stanhope S. S. Co. Limited, 2 Cir., 150 F.2d 54, 55; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ford Motor Co. v. Busam Motor Sales, 11100.
...an appeal does not lie from an order granting a new trial. Barbarino v. Stanhope S. S. Co., 2 Cir., 150 F.2d 54; Howell v. Terminal R. Association, 8 Cir., 155 F.2d 807; Florini v. Stegner, 3 Cir., 82 F.2d 708; Long v. Davis, 9 Cir., 169 F.2d 982; Sentinel Co. v. Dinwiddie, 7 Cir., 41 F.2d ......
-
Basciano v. Reinecke
...is wholly without merit. Appeal dismissed. 1 That such an order is normally not immediately appealable is clear. Howell v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n, 155 F.2d 807 (8th Cir., 1946); Youdan v. Majestic Hotel Management Corp., 125 F.2d 15 (7th Cir., 1942). 2 But cf. Ford Motor Co. v. Busam Motor Sa......
-
Tye v. Hertz Drivurself Stations
...of the rights and liabilities of the parties in this case, and that the orders are not final or appealable. Howell v. Terminal R. Association, 8 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 807, 808. For the reasons stated, the appeal will be 1 Title 28 United States Code Annotated, § 1291, which insofar as pertin......
-
Wagner v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 19748-9.
...because the granting of a new trial on the issue of damages renders the order interlocutory and nonappealable. Howell v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n, 155 F.2d 807 (8th Cir. 1946). Although the judgment denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and granting a new trial on t......